Search The Register-Guard

archive

Editorial

A clumsy grasp for a raise

Richardson’s pressure unseemly, impolitic

Appeared in print: Tuesday, April 23, 2013, page A6

If all anyone knew of Liane Richardson’s performance as Lane county administrator came from her behind-the-scenes efforts to obtain a hefty pay increase, the conclusion would be that the last thing she deserves is a raise.

Her campaign of self-promotion was clumsy in two ways: Richardson attempted to influence a subordinate who should have been left to prepare a neutral assessment of county officials’ salaries, and the attempt undermines Lane County’s attempt to earn a reputation for frugality in advance of next month’s public vote on a jail levy.

The pay raise issue first played out in January, when the county’s human resources department recommended a 15.3 percent raise for Richardson and a 14 percent pay increase for Stephen Dingle, the newly appointed county counsel. The raises would have pushed Richardson’s yearly salary to $175,656, and Dingle’s to $166,400.

Two days later, Richardson and Dingle declined the raises, and properly so. The recommendation came against a backdrop of rollbacks and layoffs for county employees. It also came the week before the Board of Commissioners was due to decide whether to place a levy for the Lane County Jail on the May 21 ballot.

Had the raises been approved, the discordant notes would have been jarring: The county couldn’t afford to maintain ordinary workers’ pay and benefits or to staff the jail, but it had enough money to fatten the paychecks of its best-paid employees.

A mitigating factor in January’s episode was the fact that the recommendation was prepared by the human resources department, which conducted a survey of pay for comparable positions in other counties. At least, that’s how it looked at the time, when an editorial in this space noted that “the salary recommendations arise from a disinterested analysis. Those who might be affected by the human resources department’s findings are well-advised to avoid interfering with the pay review process.”

As it turns out, Richardson was lobbying energetically for more money. In e-mails obtained by The Register-Guard, Richardson informed Madilyn Zike, the county’s human resources director, that she needed and deserved a salary of $175,000 or more. Richardson boasted of having slain many dragons, and warned that law firms were lined up on her doorstep with offers of well-compensated employment.

Richardson is Zike’s boss, and for that reason alone should have kept her distance from the pay review process. Any pressure, real or perceived, from the county administrator would demolish the credibility of Zike’s findings about appropriate pay levels. Even if the congruence between Richardson’s demands and Zike’s ultimate recommendations were coincidental, the administrator’s fingerprints leave the pay raise proposal thoroughly tainted. No employee should be placed in Zike’s position, where the integrity of her professional judgments is left open to question.

Richardson can point to some successes during her tenure. Her law degree is a valuable credential. Zike undoubtedly knew those things without being told. The Board of Commissioners, which sets the administrator’s salary, is also familiar with Richardson’s performance and qualifications. Richardson’s effort to put her thumb on the scales was unnecessary, unfair, self-defeating and damaging to Lane County’s larger interests.